David Peters responded:
>If trackways are _all_ you believe in.if phylogeny, morphology, homology
>and analogy mean nothing.then Ray, we have only your "leap of faith"
>that pterosaurs could fly, because there is no trackway evidence for
>this behavior, only phylogeny, morphology, homology and analogy.<
Dave might do well to speak with more caution. It is widely known that
persons in desperation or anger tend to stretch and distort the meanings and
intentions of others' statements to fit their straw-man cases.
From what distorted window is Dave viewing my statements? Did I say
anything about disregarding evidence that pterosaurs could fly, contrary to
the fossil evidence of wings?!!! LMAO!
But 'an-ounce-of-morphology-gives-us-tons-of-locomotory-insight'
advocates like Dave made fools of themselves as evidenced in years of
claiming that pterosaurs did NOT walk quadrapedally! The trackways have
proven them wrong.
Considering that their extrapolations to the Nth degree from perceived
morphological 'evidences' misled them all those years into taking a stand
against quadrapedal pterosaurian locomotion, it is not unreasonable to
suspect that similar misinterpretations of the significance of perceived
'morphology' might be misleading them again.
Dave's track record of predicting pterosaur locomotion is not very
credible.
Furthermore, I have never asserted that no species of pterosaur could
ever have progressed bipedally on occasion. I hope no one reads 'words'
into my statements that were never intended. To the contrary, in fact, I
should, indeed, be surprised if bipedal progression of a pterosaur never,
ever happened.
Trackways give us rather clear-cut and direct evidence of the dynamics
of animals on the ground, concerning which, ostelogical morphology can only
provide rather indirect deductions. When we speak of terrestrial
locomotion, trackway evidence is far superior to the kind of inferences Dave
is trying to make, although I would never deny his right to make them. But
he should not assert that he is talking fact, as he did in the posting to
which I initially responded.
Ray Stanford
Mesozoic Track Project
College Park, Maryland, USA
"You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles." --
Sherlock Holmes in The Boscombe Valley Mystery
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Peters" <davidrpeters@earthlink.net>
To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>; <dinotracker@earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 7:01 AM
Subject: Re: four-winged dino -- ptero homology?
Ray Stanford wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
David Peters wrote:
>Pterosaurs have all the characters that separate these "bipedal"
lizards
from the strictly quadrupedal ones...<
Could you provide us a reference which convincingly reveals that
pterosaurs are LIZARDS?!!!
"Leaping lizards!", David, it sounds as though you're talking about
a
big leap of faith into fantasy!
Any I suggest you lay off the "Hello, Dr. Beebe!" invective. It may
come back to haunt you. :)
I'd prefer to discuss pterosaurs with someone with a TRACK RECORD
than
with a faith axe to grind.
Ray Stanford
Mesozoic Track Project
College Park, Maryland, USA
<<<<<<<<<
No, Ray, I cannot provide a pterosaurs = lizards reference. (I know
that was a rhetoric question.) : )
If trackways are _all_ you believe in.if phylogeny, morphology, homology
and analogy mean nothing.then Ray, we have only your "leap of faith"
that pterosaurs could fly, because there is no trackway evidence for
this behavior, only phylogeny, morphology, homology and analogy.
Sincerely,
David Peters